And it's NOT Republicans he's afraid of!!!
Posted on 01/21/2006 5:21:29 PM PST by wjersey
Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.
That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.
I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Spin it, baby, spin it good...
Speaking truth to cowards. Typical of the Nazi style behavior of the Modern Left. Scream down and bully anyone who tells them the truth. Only their porpaganda is allowed. Another example of the American Left's complete unfitness for any measure of political power.
Oh B.S. Talk about covering your tracks. Sorry, theres no way out of this one. All you are proving by writing this "repeal" is that you have no credibility as a journalist and you don't care about the truth, just what your liberal readers want to hear.
Talk about agenda...
-snip-
But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties.
Schizophrenia.
My theory for why the Post shut down the blog is this:
They did not want anyone to draw conclusions about the IQs of their radical left wing readers. That would make it far more difficult to pigeon hole conservatives in that niche.
People who can't reason can't communicate. Is this a surprise?
"[S]he gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken [her] to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of h[er] nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. [S]he had won the victory over h[er]self. [S]he loved Big Brother."
Is schadenfreude a sin?
The "readers" get it for the ball scores and classified ads.
Looks like I just wasted a forty year profession.
The real problem is that she is giving away the Democrats' parsing.
Abrahamoff never gave them any money, the Indians did. And since they are all good liberal multicultis who love Indians, what's wrong with that?
I remember that's what hillary first said, when she refused to give any of the money back because she did nothing wrong. I suggested at the time that her wording was a bit peculiar, and should be carefully parsed.
What they don't seem to be able to say is that Abrahamoff didn't give the Republicans any money either. The Indians did.
Couldn't get a table at The Palm after you dared utter the truth and step outside of the leftist orthodoxy in Washington??? Get un-invited from The Bradlees latest cocktail party??
Weird huh - it's a Republican scandal - money went to both parties. I think that "Republican scandal" part can be translated into "please let back into the left's good graces."
"Is schadenfreude a sin?"
If so, a lot of freepin' will be going on in hell!
And now you understand the consequences of straying from the Path of Lefteousness. You violated the Commandment that says "Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor if he happens to be a Republican. And thou shalt in all instances refrain from telling the complete truth if it is embarrassing to Democrats or other communists."
Not in this case. I'll absolve you. ;~)
And it's NOT Republicans he's afraid of!!!
Well, there are three stories here.
She clearly wasn't factually correct about Dems getting money directly from Abramoff.
But at the end of the day, it matters little whether money came directly from Abramoff or one of his clients if there was a quid pro quo involved, so she is correct there.
But the biggest story is the raw vulgarity of so many left-wing posters, which I have witnessed firsthand on MSM forums.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.